Lindsay Lohan and the Law

lindsay-lohan-mug-shot-2011-la-sheriffI have two friends (and fellow classmates) who love to flood my email inbox and Facebook account with pictures of Lindsay Lohan. I think they love it more than summer break. Admittedly, I had this coming. These friends showed me a particularly startling picture of Ms. Lohan during a study break 1L year, and I let out a sort of shriek that I’m not proud of. I understand that actions have consequences. The pictures began rolling in during fall of 2011 and haven’t stopped since.

Feelings of disregard pervaded those first few months. But as the seasons changed, so did I. Most pictures came with headlines, and the more I read, the more I wondered how someone can so frequently break laws, violate probation, and skip out on court dates, and yet avoid any meaningful jail time. Then again, it’s not necessarily her fault that she’s been able to avoid consequences better than I have. The question, for me at least, is whether the justice system has treated her differently than it would you or I. And if so, why?

Continue ReadingLindsay Lohan and the Law

Adam’s Rib as an Historical Document: The Plight of Women Lawyers in the 1940s

In a recent post, Professor Lisa Mazzie offered her observations on the 1949 film classic, Adam’s Rib, which stars Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy as husband-and-wife attorneys who end up on opposite sides of the same murder case. Like Professor Mazzie, I have long been fascinated with the movie, especially as an historical document.

Trying to figure out what it is that Adam’s Rib has to say about women and the legal profession in the 1940’s turns out to be a bit perplexing. Does it endorse the idea that women make just as good attorneys as men, or is it merely just a celebration of the uniqueness of Hepburn’s character?

Although you would not necessarily discern this from the movie itself, Adam’s Rib was filmed at a time in which the role of women in the legal profession was apparently changing in significant ways.

In an era when very few women went to law school and even fewer practiced law, the 1940’s were, thanks to World War II, a decade of expanded opportunities for women in the legal profession. Unfortunately, this expansion turned out to be quite temporary.

In 1940, there were only 4,447 female attorneys in the United States, at least as identified by the United States Census. As such, these “Portias” accounted for only 2.4% of all lawyers. By 1950, the number of women lawyers had risen by almost 50%, to a total of 6,348, which amounted to 3.5% of lawyers generally.

The number of female law students showed a similar increase during the decade. In 1940, there were just 690 female students at American Bar Association accredited law schools; in 1950, the total had nearly doubled to 1,364. Of course, the number of women lawyers remained quite small, but for a few years during the middle of the decade, woman seemed poised to play a far more significant role in the profession than they had in the prewar world.

The massive military call up of American males after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, created an immediate void in American law schools. As enrollments declined precipitously, a number of ambitious women were able to take advantage of the sudden need for students. By 1942, the percentage of law students who were female had jumped from 4.35% of all law students just two years earlier to 11.7%. By 1943, the percentage had increased to 21.9%.

While it is true that much of the percentage increase was the result of the departure of male students which made for a much smaller denominator, the number of female students at ABA-accredited law schools exceeded 1,000 for the first time in 1943. By 1947, the number of was over 1400.

The War also created new opportunities in the workplace, especially in corporate law firms in major cities which faced a serious shortage of lawyers. Many Wall Street firms began employing women attorneys for the first time after a year of scrambling to find adequate substitutes for male lawyers drafted into service.

For example, the New York firm of Cahill Gordon hired its first female associate in 1943, and Shearman & Sterling followed suit in 1944. Meanwhile, the previously all-male bastion of Sullivan & Cromwell employed nine female associates between 1942 and the end of the War. The official historian of Simpson, Thatcher and Bartlett spoke for a number of Wall Street law firms when he later reported that Simpson, Thatcher had suffered fewer disruptions during World War II than during the much-shorter World War I because “there were women lawyers who could be recruited to do some of the work formerly handled by male associates who had joined the armed forces.”

While no other woman was so “honored” during the decade, in 1944, the Wall Street firm of Spence, Hotchkiss, Parker & Duryee even promoted Russian-born female associate Soia Mentschikoff to partner, making her the first female partner in a Wall Street firm. (Mentschikoff was later the first woman faculty member at the law schools of both Harvard and the University of Chicago.)

In Boston, the silk stocking firm of Ropes & Gray responded to the lawyer shortage by promoting two female secretaries in its probate department, both of whom were law school graduates, to the status of associate attorney. Undoubtedly, women lawyers made inroads as well in prosecutor’s offices, small firms, and as solo practitioners. Encountering a female attorney was a much more likely event in 1944 and 1945, than ever before in United States history.

As it turned out, the “triumph” of women lawyers was short-lived. Returning lawyer-G.I.’s were given their old jobs back after 1945, and by 1947, law schools were again turning out droves of male attorneys, many of whom had funded law school under the GI Bill. In response, women lawyers were often demoted, or frequently let go altogether.

By 1949, when Adam’s Rib debuted, lawyers like Katharine Hepburn’s character Amanda Bonner were already disappearing from the scene. Moreover, while the end of the war did not bring about an immediate decline in the number of female law students, which reached 1405 in 1947, by the next year their number did begin to shrink. Although the total number of female law students rebounded slightly in the early 1950’s, it would decline again and would remain between 1100 and 1500 students in any given year until it finally exceeded the latter figure in 1962. The percentage of female law students would not exceed the 1943 figure of 21.9% until 1975.

It is hard to know to know to what extent the creative parties behind Adam’s Rib were aware of the developments just described. The two screenwriters, the husband and wife team of Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon (she Harold and Maude fame three decades later), had no apparent connection to the legal profession, although as New Yorkers with business connections, they were probably aware of the increased presence of female lawyers during the 1940’s.

Director George Cukor, on the other hand, had a number of connections to the legal profession. His father, Victor Cukor, was a Hungarian Jewish immigrant who had studied law at night after arriving in the United States and was an assistant district attorney in Manhattan when George (b. 1899) was young. George Cukor himself originally intended to pursue a career in law when he enrolled in City College of New York in 1917, but after a short stint in the Army during World War I, he left college and spent the rest of his career in the theater and movies. Cukor’s knowledge of the legal profession probably had more to do with the credibility of the movie’s courtroom scenes than it did to any statement that the film might be making about the role of women lawyers.

Whatever the intentions of its creators, Adam’s Rib is clearly the signature “women lawyers” film of the 1940’s. It was not, however, the only Hollywood film of that decade to have a female lawyer as a central character. In fact, there were 14 such films, although the other 13 are all but forgotten, even though several starred well-known actresses like Eve Arden (She Couldn’t Say No, 1941); Ann Baxter (The Walls of Jericho, 1948); Rosalind Russell (Design for Scandal, 1941, and Tell It to the Judge, 1949); Myrna Loy (The Bachelor and the Bobby-soxer, 1947); and Paulette Goddard (Suddenly, It’s Spring, 1947).

In most of these films, the female lawyer characters are attractive, smart, but somewhat emotional. An interesting exception is the Roger Rogers western, Eyes of Texas (1948), where 60-year old character actress Nana Bryant plays a tough, no-nonsense western female lawyer named Hattie E. Waters, Attorney, whose primary objective is to hornswoggle her own client out of his beloved ranch, which he is using as a home for boys who lost their fathers in World War II. (This portrayal was obviously not an endorsement of the idea women lawyers.)

Although Amanda Bonner may have bested her husband Adam in Adam’s Rib, her triumph was short-lived, as it would be another three decades before female attorneys assumed the numerically significant role that they play today.

Continue ReadingAdam’s Rib as an Historical Document: The Plight of Women Lawyers in the 1940s

Superman and the Rule of Law

This month (June 2013) marks the 75th anniversary of the first appearance of Superman in Action Comics #1.  Although he has been imitated many times, Superman, a/k/a Clark Kent, the surviving son of the exploded planet Krypton, remains the archetype of the comic book superhero.  Literary critics and cultural theorists as noted as Umberto Eco and Scott Bukatman have long ruminated on his significance. (If you doubt this, see Eco, “The Myth of Superman,” Diacritics, Spring 1972; Scott Bukatman, Matters of Gravity (2004).)

For most of the past 75 years, Superman has been held up as a symbol of the fairness of the American system.  After all, at least since the debut of the Adventures of Superman television show in 1951, he has been committed to fighting for “truth, justice, and the American Way.”  However, upon closer analysis, the relationship between Superman, justice, and law has never as straightforward as it appeared in the middle of the twentieth century.

To begin with, in his earliest comic book appearances in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, the Man of Steel usually operated more as a vigilante than a law enforcement official.  Although he once emphasized the importance of formal legal procedures while staring down a lynch mob, in confrontations with corrupt public officials, racketeers, wife-beaters, gangsters, and wartime profiteers, the early Superman was much more direct in his efforts to see that justice was done.  When an innocent man was wrongly convicted, Superman, like the heroes of western movies, had no reservations about interfering with the judicial process to make sure that justice was done.

In these early years, Superman was quite willing to intimidate and even use the threat of being hurled off the top of a tall building to force wrong-doers to come forward and admit to their crimes.  Sometimes, it appeared that he was inflicting the punishment himself.  Although Superman is never shown actually killing anyone in the early comics, he frequently attacked his opponents with such physical force that they must have been severely injured if not killed as a result.  Rather than simply stand stationary and watch bullets bounce of his chest (as he would do later), he would teach wrongdoers a lesson by picking them up and hurling them across the room where they smashed into an unmovable wall.  This Superman clearly placed ideas of popular justice ahead of legal niceties.  (In Action Comics #1, one of the bad guys is a United States Senator, and Superman clearly shows no special respect for the office.)

During World War II, Superman began to change.  For instance, he sold war bonds, which was not a very vigilante thing to do.  The postwar Superman was also different in his approach.  His focus increasingly became more on the apprehension of criminals than the elimination of injustice.  He was less a righter of wrongs than a defender of the established order.

After 1940, the costumed-crime fighter took an oath never to kill anyone or anything, and he dutifully allowed wrong-doers to wear themselves out trying to overpower him, before arresting them and turning them over to the police.  We never see Superman testifying in court, but we are led to believe that the perpetrators he captured were always convicted and sent to prison.  (The frequency with which his arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor, escaped from prison must have given Superman some doubts about the efficacy of the criminal punishment system on which he was relying.)

During the Cold War, the idea that “justice” and the “American way” might lead to two separate results was not seriously entertained in the world of Superman comics, and the Man of Steel worked hand-in-hand with presidents and world leaders to advance the same pro-American agenda.  However, that equation began to break down in the late 1960’s as comic books sought to be respond to the upheaval in American society by becoming more “relevant.”  In a telling exchange in 1968 with fellow Justice League of America member Green Arrow, who had grown a beard and clearly felt differently, Superman argued that superheroes should not act based on what they thought to be just, but that they should commit themselves to enforcing the law.  (Justice League of America #66, Nov. 1968.)

In 1968, that was an unbelievably uncool thing for a hero to say, and it clearly identified Superman as a defender of the “establishment,” and probably, the “military industrial complex” as well.  At this exact moment, Batman was rediscovering his Dark Knight roots and Spiderman, a product of DC’s main competitor Marvel, was discovering that youthful superheroes could have personal problems of the sort never imagined by Superboy in 1930’s Smallville.  Although he suddenly seemed unbelievably square, Superman’s baby boomer fans ultimately forgave him for his stodginess.

As a kid in the 1960’s, I was vaguely aware of this contradiction between Superman, the free-lance doer of justice, and Superman, the symbol of the priority of the rule of law.  Between 1962 and 1966, during the so-called “Silver Age” of American comics, I was a devoted reader of Superman comic books in all their manifestations—Superman, Action, Superboy, Adventure, Jimmy Olsen, Lois Lane, World’s Finest (where he teamed with Batman), and Justice League of America (where he was joined by eight, and then nine, other superheroes).

Somewhere around my fourteenth birthday, I suddenly “outgrew” the urge to stay immersed in that world, but ever since I have been fascinated by the Superman character and his seemingly unshakeable appeal.  Although I stopped reading the magazines—I needed the money for other interests—I would periodically pick up a comic book at a newsstand and try to quickly catch up with what was going on with Mr. Kent.  Because of his continued popularity, I have been able to follow, more or less, the goings on in the life of the heroic Kryptonian.  I also had great fun introducing my own children to Superman and the other DC superheroes of my youth in the 1990’s.

On the whole, I think that it is the original Superman that most appeals to us as citizens.  Like the classic western hero, Superman rode into town (i.e., crashed on our planet) unexpectedly and eventually used his superior powers to bring down the forces of evil that were too powerful for ordinary people to deal with.  That’s the hero that Americans wanted in the 1930’s and the 1940’s, and the hero that we have wished for ever since.

It is not the resolute defender of the status quo that Superman became in the 1950’s and 1960’s that appeals to us, but the seeker of justice who respects the law, but who also knows that there are times when the law must be ignored to ensure the triumph of right.

That this sounds vaguely fascistic is just one of the many interesting aspects of the Superman phenomenon.  If you are interested in more sophisticated theorizing on the cultural significance of Superman and superheroes, I recommend Jason Bainbridge, “’This is the Authority. This Planet is Under Our Protection’ – An Exegesis of Superheroes’ Interrogations of Law,” 3 Law, Culture and the Humanities 455–476 (2007).  Bainbridge is an Australian culture studies scholar who currently teaches at the Swinburne University of Technology.  For the history of Superman as a character and a cultural phenomenon, I recommend Larry Tye’s recent Superman: The High-Flying History of America’s Most Enduring Hero.

Continue ReadingSuperman and the Rule of Law